Tuesday, January 22, 2013

"If It Saves Only One Life..."

Vice president Joe Biden is heading president Barack Obama's panel to
institute legislation in wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School
tragic evil shooting of elementary school children and teachers. Of
course, it looks like the vice president is focusing all of the
legislation on gun control [restrictions]. In talking about the legislation that might be proposed the vice president said: "If it [new legislation on gun control] saves only one life, it is worth it."
I heard on the Mike Huckabee show on the Fox News Channel that
president Barack Obama when talking about legislation for gun control
also said: "If we can save one life it will be worth it." This
rhetoric from the vice president and the president is reprehensible
demagoguery because it implies that anyone who doesn't agree with any
proposed legislation would not care about saving a life, especially a
child's life.If the president and vice president really believed
in their demagoguery about saving one life, wouldn't they apply it to
all situations? Would "saving one life" only apply to gun deaths?What about all the deaths that result in
automobile accidents? Sometimes tragically whole families have been
killed in tragic car accidents. Shouldn't the president try to put the
vice president in charge of creating legislation that could save at
least one life. That would be worth it, wouldn't it?I can see it now:
President Barack Obama is surrounded by kids who wrote personally to
him that they didn't want to lose their mommy and daddy in a car
accident. He would have each 6 year old read their heart rendering
pleas to save the lives of their parents and or siblings by making
congress enact restrictions on those death machines. One beautiful
little girl in reading her letter told the president that if there were
no more automobiles, no one would ever get hurt in a car accident again.
Ah, from the mouths of babes. All of the adorable children would surprisingly end their letters with a
PS: "you are doing a great job, president Obama." I guess even when
it comes to little children it proves that great minds think alike.Then
president Obama, wiping a tear from his eye, would talk about how it is
time for the congress to act immediately. He could say, to ease the mind of
those automobile loving extremists, I mean car owners, that "I am not
out to take your cars...no matter how much the AAA tries to scare you".
"Any law restricting certain types of cars would be grandfathered in".
Whew, thank you Mr. president. The president then would propose that we
could restrict any future car made to be able to only go 20 mph. That
surely would save one life, and the president would continue, "who could
be against that?" President Obama, the bi partisan compromiser could
say to the congress, "if you don't like that idea, you could pass
legislation to limit the speed limit on all freeways and highways of
America to 20 mph", "and if neither of those "reasonable" options are
adopted by this recalcitrant congress, at least think about doing this:
Pass a law that says there can be only one individual in a car at one
time. Then if there is a deadly accident, it would involve only one
person per car." "Think about all the lives that could be saved then." The president would then add emphatically, "You never again
would have a family wiped out in an automobile accident".

The generous
president giving the congress all of these available options still would add one final option to congress: "If the congress can't agree to all these reasonable ways I've given them to stop all of these tragic deaths in car crashes,I hope congress will agree with me that the least thing we can do is to make all interstate
highways automobile free zones". Genius. Who could possibly disagree
with that logic, except maybe an uncaring evil Republican congressman.

Yes,
the benevolent Mr compromise himself, Barack Obama, would be giving many
sensible automobile regulations to congress. It would be up to them to
do their duty and choose at least one of those options because "if it
can just save one life, it would be worth it".Next in saving at least one child's life, abortion restrictions.....oops, can't go there.

Saying "If it saves one life, it is worth it" is correctly labeled as rhetoric because it is most assuredly able to save many, many lives. Look at Australia: no mass shootings since gun control; suicides, murders, and other crimes significantly dropped. Comparing the restrictions on guns with registering books, or limiting the use of vehicles is absurd. The purpose of a book is not to kill or wound, the purpose of a car is not to drive through crowds of people (plus don't we have to register are cars?). What is the purpose of guns? I'll tell you, causing violence or the threat of violence, there is absolutely no other purpose for guns.